lect 11 - non-state actors in global governance Flashcards
new actors in global governance: epistemic communities
*not captured by the intergov paradigm
= new set of actors involved in global governance
Haas
= transnational (crossborder) networks of professionals (often scientists) with shared knowledge and shared methods of problem-solving (diagnosing and understanding a problem) that contribute to global governance by:
- building knowledge via research
- raising awareness of problems
- proposing solutions
- pressuring govs and IGOs to change policies
often depend on social movements to convert scientific consensus into effective political pressure, to create domestic incentives for governments to change policies and cooperate
= often don’t have enough political clout -> work with social movements (bring mass pressure on gov)
e.g. pollution of the mediterranean sea
- 1970s growing chemical pollution of Mediterranean but no action by govs
- 17 coastal states had diff understandings and commitment
- but an epistemic community of marine biologists reached agreement on the problem and convinced the govs to accept rules to reduce chemical pollution = ‘mediterranean action plan’ (MAP): set of rules govs would follow to reduce pollution in the Mediterranean
(problem: do govs (still) listen to scientific experts? increasingly don’t)
diverse actors in global governance: mulitstakeholderism
A decentralised, non-hierarchical model of governance involving multiple types of stakeholders in rule-making and rule-implementation to address global problems.
- everybody that has a stake (that is affected) should be included
stakeholders = actors with relevant expertise and interests:
= anybody affected by / involved in an issue-area
- firms/corporations, states/govs, formal IGOs
- civil-society actors: NGOs, social movements, civil society networks, individuals
e.g. multistakeholderism
- governance of the diamond trade
KCPS
= not very successful
goal: stop the trade of ‘blood diamonds’ from conflict zones (aim to keep blood diamonds off of the market)
process: in 2022 govs, diamond businesses, NGOs adopted the KIMBERLY PROCESS CERTIFICATION SCHEME (KPCS)
*3 diff stakeholders
(every diamond sold needs to be certified where it comes from)
problem = compliance depends on monitoring by gov officials, who are often corrupt
so: went wrong with implementation
result = KPCS continues but major NGOs have withdrawn
e.g. multistakeholderism
- governance of the internet
!!!!won’t be tested on ICANN, just to understaand how multistakeholderism works
ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)
= very succesful
= nonprofit organization in LA
ensures ‘single and interoperable internet supported by stable, secure and resilient unique identifier systems’ (protocol nrs, domain names)
1998-2016: worked under contract to US gov
since 2016: fully independent, bottom-up, community-based, consensus-driven, multistakeholder governance
- academic, civil society, internet users, business, gov organizations etc.
governance process
3 meetings per year:
- community forum = Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs), cross-community interaction, and plenary sessions on topics of community-wide interest
- policy forum = policy development and regional outreach
- general meeting: global outreach, capacity building, leadership training
multistakeholder model of internet governance is contested
multistakeholderism can be contested, e.g. with internet
some states want more state control
Liberal and authoritarian states disagree on internet governance:
- US, EU others = support liberal ‘multistakeholder’ model
- Russia and China prefer more state control, less multistakeholderism
= want AUTHORITARIAN MULTILATERALISM
rule-making without governments:
global performance indicators
Private firms, NGOs, and IGOs shape global governance by setting standards, assessing performance by states, and publicizing the results.
- e.g. happiness index
goals =
- to make credible and neutral information on governance available to all (bc information problem world politics: you don’t really know what’s going on in countries)
- to shape behavior of investors, consumers, voters, governments (by simplifying, quantifying and standardizing social phenomena)
!GPIs are very controversial and contested
they are part of global governance: they guide behavior
how + why do global performance indicators work?
how they work =
- Define targets & assessment criteria.
- Publicize governance outcomes.
- Promote competition among states.
- Activate transnational pressure by IGOs and NGOs
why they work:
- improve understanding of the implications of policy choices
- raise fear of material consequences via official sanctions or private disinvestment
- raise fear of reputational damage via ‘naming and shaming’
some problems with global performance indicators
Davis: how does GPI relate to power
- no systematic oversight of targets and indicators (who sets and scores them)
- random private actors what the targets are and how they can be indicated - risk of hidden bias (why is variable x included but not y)
- risk of hidden lobbying (what if a state pressures for a good score)
- ultimately this can lead to a de-politicization of governance (where’s the public debate and accountability)
- governance is about getting a good score, politics gets taken out of it
rule-enforcement without governance:
private enforcement of int’l law
NGOs (private actors) contribute to the enforcement of international law by operating as private intelligence agencies, police, and prosecutors.
(these are normally government functions)
(international, law is not hierarchical, it is decentralized: no effective government above governments)
(courts can not enforce their rulings, it depends on governments)
(this is weird: historically private actors have no role in int’l law enforcement)
how? - mechanisms for private actors’ enforcement int’l law
- investigate and gather evidence
- monitoring and catching lawbreakers ‘in the act’
- lawsuits and political pressure against govs, companies and individuals
why?
- motives = gap between int’l legalization (govs develop int’l rules) and weak int’l enforcement
*gov good at making rules, not good at ensuring compliance
-> NGOs appoint themselves to police international law - opportunities =
- legal changes (NGOs have ‘standing’ in some international and domestic courts): don’t have to show they themselves were hurt, can also show that someone else was hurt (= on behalf of other people)
- technological changes (satellite imagery, data leaks, forensic computing): e.g. private actors can buy satellite photographs
private global governance and state authority
- international commercial arbitration ICA
Allen 2023
Int’l commercial arbitration (ICA) is a method of dispute resolution whereby parties agree to have their disputes resolved by private individuals (i.e., arbitrators, usually lawyers) rather than a court of law
- Very popular among multinational companies: when two have a dispute, likely it will be resolved via int’l commercial arbitration
- Key forum: Int’l Court of Arbitration = a PRIVATE body under the International Chamber of Commerce, a business group.
Allen’s argument: ICA weakens state authority by reducing the economic incentive to develop strong domestic legal institutions.
-> private governance is weakening state authority
GPIs - ratings by private businesses
GPIs created by private businesses
- GPIs that measure the risk of default
*info for investors, is the bond a good investment
govs care about this: they want to get good rating so that they don’t have to give high interest rate to compensate for the risk (better rating -> lower interest rate) - GPI that looks at govs accounting behavior (risk of inaccuracy)
- GPI that looks at political stability (risk of conflict, loss of investments)
e.g. done by CTRISK (based in Hong Kong), Oxford Analytica
GPI ratings by NGOs
- Labour & environment: Fairtrade International (labour), Forest Stewardship Council (environmental sustainability)…
- Democracy & governance: Freedom House’s Global Freedom Index; The Economist’s Democracy Index; Ibrahim Index of African Governance; Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index
- Economic freedom & competitiveness: Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index; World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report (infrastructure, health, labour market)
- Happiness: Sustainable Development Solutions Network’s World Happiness Report (multivariate, self-reporting via Gallup)
GPI by IGOs
- World Bank: Doing Business Index – ranking of national business regulations from most to least business-friendly (discontinued in 2021)
- World Bank: Business Ready – new ranking of countries by conditions enabling private business and investment (coming in spring 2024)
- World Bank: Human Capital Index – indicators of child health & education
- European Banking Authority: indicators on national frameworks for loan enforcement
- European Bank for Reconstruction and Development: indicators on national insolvency frameworks
examples private enforcement of int’l law
- Amnesty International: monitoring who is tortured, emprisoned
- Climate TRACE
- Greenpeace
- Sea Shepherd (tries to stop whaling: bought ships, follow whaling ships, when they are about to kill the whale they get in the way)
- Bellingcat: NGO investigation (with open source info) MH17 disaster, got shot down over Ukraine
*pics on the internet show Russian missile launcher being transported -> able to identify it also going back to Russia
= NGO doing police work
global governance outside of the realm of intergovernmentalism
- private global governance
- epistemic communities
- multistakeholderism
- Global Performance Indicators
- private enforcement of int’l law
important parts of global governance outside of intergovernmentalism
